Public Journalism – Effective, or a waste of time and money? – by Chris Kotars

A Brief History of Public Journalism, written by Paul S. Voakes, gives the reader an in-depth analysis of public journalism, from its very beginnings to its prevalence in modern society. In addition to providing an excellent overview of the basics of public journalism, the reader is provided with a multitude of opinions – both positive and negative – regarding the practice. The essay provides comments and feedback from notable sources, including scholars, professors, journalists, and more.

To begin the essay, Voakes informs the reader of two basic schools of thought regarding journalism and its effect on democracy. The first perspective was originated by Walter Lippmann in the early 1920’s. Lippmann states, “Citizens are too busy, too ignorant, or too overwhelmed with information to participate actively in democratic processes, so they must rely on the media to decide what they need to know to vote wisely.” Essentially, Lippmann is saying is that the citizens’ principal democratic activity is to vote – it is therefore the media’s job to inform the public of political issues and events. The second perspective was originated by John Dewey, who felt it was imperative that citizens do more than just vote. In fact, Dewey believed the citizens’ should participate in the process of deliberation, rather than delegating the task to officials and lobbyists. It is Dewey’s school of thought that most closely mirrors the principles of public journalism.

While it was Lippmann’s philosophy that remained predominant for most of the twentieth century, a convergence of several thoughts and actions occurring in the late 1990’s triggered the appearance of public journalism in America. Ever since it’s abrupt introduction, the practice of public journalism has been both criticized and applauded. For example, one scholar argues that Lippmann’s observation about society in the 1920’s is more appropriate for today’s society than is a “democracy of interaction.” He states that the nation “operates on too large a scale for citizens to be actively involved in policy making.” Further, he states that, “informing the public is a daunting enough task without also expecting the media to engineer public deliberation.”

An excellent counter-attack of this opinion comes from columnist and author, David Broder, who stated that Americans’ collapse of confidence in their political system was a direct result of the elite journalism tactics. He advocates that journalists and citizens should be working together to find out what issues are important to the general population. Rather, what has developed in today’s journalism is a team of consultant’s working together with politicians to portray very specific and biased news in an effort to sway public opinion in their favor.

This issue is a very debatable topic, and a certain conclusion after reading this essay is that no matter the topic – be it public journalism’s goals, performance in implementing its goals, relation to democratic theory, or the impact on communities – a heated argument will ensue.

Personally, I feel that public journalism provides an excellent opportunity to bring society closer together, as well as to develop a much stronger, more reliable understanding of the true issues and concerns facing a particular community. For example, I can recall a particular article that appeared in my hometown paper, The Kane County Chronicle. The article addressed a tax issue that was stirring up the community – a local politician had proposed a tax cut without properly explaining its effects. One particular effect was a cut in the public schooling arts program. The Kane County Chronicle article properly described the proposal, and urged members of the community who opposed to voice their opinion at a community meeting.

I recently read an article in the Washington Post in which the writer portrayed a deep frustration with the local TV stations’ and their constant, 24 hour coverage of snow-related weather in the area. The author described that it would be easy enough to simply place a small update bar at the bottom of the screen, rather than ruining an entire day of broadcasting by proving non-stop weather reports. In response to his complaints, the TV stations claimed that wall-to-wall storm coverage is a public service, an obligation, a selfless act of civic journalism. In relation to the essay I have covered in this paper, it is hard to see a connection between wall-to-wall storm coverage and public journalism. In fact, I don’t see any resemblance whatsoever. By providing non-stop storm coverage, the TV station is in no way provoking public interaction with political policy, nor advocating a community meeting to discuss issues and concerns. It is, in fact, simply an attempt to improve the TV stations “weather brand,” – thus convincing viewers that in times of serious weather concern, their particular station is the channel to turn to. I did a lot of researching to find a legitimate, thought-provoking example of public journalism; however I could not find one.